MSE News: Insurance costs to soar as gender discrimination banned

starrystarry

Percy1983 wrote: »

Funnily enough yes.

And if I hadn't been forced pay insurance so far I would have about £7.5k anyway.

And if I wrote your car off would you be happy for me to pay you back when I can afford it?

lisyloo

To which if I am not insured and the worse happens I am paying out for the rest of my life for my mistake, yet again I am happy to take the risk.

You might be able to provide £20K, but you probably wouldn't be able to find £2 million if you paralysed someone and they needed a lifetime of care and special housing.

That's extreme but the vast majority of people in the UK would not be able to finance the more normal claims.
The vast majority cannot finance more than a month or two off work.

And if I hadn't been forced pay insurance so far I would have about £7.5k anyway.

You might but your average young person would not save the money to put away for potential claims.
Well done on your financial planning BTW, but you need to recognise you are far from normal (I mean that as a compliment).

Percy1983

I mean this as a geniune question but people get sued all the time now and what happens to those who can't afford it? there must be a system?, to which I would be happy to be at the mercy of it if I am to blame.

Yet again if you hit my car the same system would work in my favour, but if not I use the bus mostly anyway (to keep insurance down) so it wouldn't be too much of a problem. (ps I am not just saying that to prove a point, I have a yearly bus pass).

lisyloo

I mean this as a geniune question but people get sued all the time now and what happens to those who can't afford it?

They either aren't pursued in the first place (it's pointless spending loads of money in legal fees to pursue a tramp)
OR if they have no assets or insurance then they go bankrupt and the victim never gets paid out.

there must be a system?

For car insurance thre is a scheme called MIB (motor insurers bureau) which we all pay for.
For criminal injuries there is the criminal injuries compensation board.
For anything else unless the victim has their own insurance then the victim is not compensated.

to which I would be happy to be at the mercy of it if I am to blame.

The issue is not what happens to you.
It's the fact that the victim would not be compensated if we didn't pay for insurance (there is MIB as the safety net but that's funded by our premiums).
It's the victim who faces the risk (they might be a child, pedestrian, cyclist etc.) It's not about you.

Yet again if you hit my car the same system would work in my favour

NO it wouldn't.
If I hit your car and I had nothing and was not insured and there was no MIB then you would get NOTHING.
If you were paralysed from the neck down then you'd be dependent on the state, your family etc. rather than being privately compensated.
Ok, you might say you have the safety net of the state.
That might in some circs be ok. But in other circs it might not be.
For example if you killed a breadwinner, it might mean his wife and kids lose their home and go into a b&b or hostel.
Ultimately they have a safety net of the state where they will be fed and housed, but possibly in a much worse way than before you killed the breadwinner.

but if not I use the bus mostly anyway

As a pedestrian you could be hit by an uninsured car and be a victim.
The "victims" are not car drivers, the worst afffected are likely to be pedestrian or cyclists (I say worst as they have no metal box around them and therefore likely to suffer worse injuries or death).

I personally think there is a moral obligation on motorists to have 3rd party insurance.
1) Why should the tax payer pick up the bill? That's also YOU by the way.
2) Why should people live a state safety net existance rather than be compensated properly?

YOU drive something that might kill someone then YOU pay or find some hobbies with fewer consequences for others.

KevinG

Percy1983 wrote: »

So all those crashes in the past by males are all history and shouldn't effect my quote?

Taken out of context! OP (it was a long time ago) was trying to argue that once a chance event had happened, the chances of it happening again were reduced. From a probability point of view, this is not true, the chances of it happening a second time are exactly the same, however, as you have pointed out, from the point of view of assessing risk for insurance purposes, they are not really "chance" events and the risk actually increases, so the probability of a second similar event is higher, exactly the opposite of what the OP surmised.

StevieJ

FATBALLZ wrote: »

This is an excellent ruling, I now can commence my business plan to open "Small Penis Car Insurance Ltd" and offer good rates to all. Of course, no man would actually ever want insurance from me, so I can offer rates attractive to women without having to pay a cross subsidy to my male customers, because there won't be any.



By way of clarity I am not being serious. Although it would now make sense for car insurance companies to 'feminise' to put off male customers from using them since they are no longer profitable as a group. This ruling is moronic.

Sheliaswheels must be visionaries Although I might sign up with them now.

http://www.sheilaswheels.com/

lisyloo

from the point of view of assessing risk for insurance purposes, they are not really "chance" events and the risk actually increases

I have to accept the statistics on this but in my case I'd say the chances decrease.

I hit my OH car on the drive 3 years ago.
There were 2 main factors. 1 was jet lag. The second was he parked his car in my blind spot after moving it for a window cleaner.

I am goign to make sure this doesn't happen in future by
a) not driving after jet lag. I'll get the train until I feel back to normal.
b) shouting at my husband to move his car back.

So my anecdote is that I have learned something and will improve my bahaviour.

However if statistics say that ON THE WHOLE, a claim means more risk of claims in future then I have to accept that.

lisyloo

Although I might sign up with them now.

They never excluded men.
Simply didn't try to attract them.

Percy1983

Maybe this is where my problem lies I believe people should just insure themselves and the whole blame element should be removed from insurance eg:

I choose to insure my car, if it gets damaged my insurance pays... simple...

Likewise I get life insurance etc and somebody crashes into me and puts me in a wheel chair my insurance covers me... simple...

That way we all way up the risks to us and insure what we want and if we don't have insurance that is our problem for not getting insurance.

In short I am happy to take responsibility to anything which might happen to me.

Yes I know it can't work like that (mostly because the current system is so ingrained, not because it can't work), but hey I don't like it buy keep playing by the rules.

huckster

Can't believe this thread is still going on.

In short statistically womens Car Insurance claims cost less to Insurers, but from 21/11/2012 per the ECJ ruling Insurers can't offer them a different rate than men.

The Insurers will therefore look for other ways of basing the premium on the risk they perceive. I suspect that they will change the rating on vehicles that are favoured by younger male drivers and also up the rates for younger drivers for postcodes where they have had a volume of claims from younger drivers.

I cannot see that the Insurers will simply increase the premium of younger women by an average of 25%. The Insurers will try their hardest to find ways other than gender, to make the premium relevant to the risk.